ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 24 June 2021
Edited by:
Elena Horská,
Slovak University of
Agriculture, Slovakia
Reviewed by:
Javier de la Fuente,
California Polytechnic State University,
United States
Michelle Lisa Colgrave,
Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO), Australia
*Correspondence:
Oscar Zollman Thomas
oscar@formo.bio
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Sustainable Food Processing,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Received: 09 March 2021
Accepted: 04 June 2021
Published: 24 June 2021
Citation:
Zollman Thomas O and Bryant C
(2021) Don’t Have a Cow, Man:
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free
Dairy Products in Five Countries.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:678491.
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.678491
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.678491
Don’t Have a Cow, Man: Consumer
Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
Products in Five Countries
Oscar Zollman Thomas 1* and Christopher Bryant 2
1
Formo, Berlin, Germany, 2 Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
Concern with the ethical, environmental and health consequences of the livestock
industry is pushing the growth of a sector of animal-free alternatives. Advancing research
is allowing these products to increasingly deliver experiences on a par with and beyond
the products they originally sought to emulate, but widespread consumer adoption has
not yet been realised. This research surveyed 5,054 individuals from Brazil, Germany,
India, the UK and the USA, examining the nature and extent of acceptance of dairy
products derived from precision fermentation, one of the three main pillars of alternative
proteins. We find substantial consumer acceptance across countries for these products,
animal-free dairy cheese, seeing 78.8% of consumers as probably or definitely likely to
try such a product, with 70.5% probably or definitely likely to buy, substantially higher
than previous research has found for cultivated meat products. Consumers anticipated
animal-free dairy cheese to be significantly more tasty than current vegan cheese
products, and just as tasty and safe as basic animal-derived cheese while rating it as
significantly more ethical and environmentally friendly. Multiple linear regression revealed
that within dietary identifiers, vegetarianism and veganism were strong predictors of
willingness to buy but flexitarianism showed the strongest predictive power for willingness
to buy. Of all variables, the strongest predictor of willingness to buy was current level
of cheese consumption. Further regressions revealed that taste perception was key to
driving purchase intent across all countries. The implications of these results for the
development of the animal-free dairy sector are discussed.
Keywords: alternative protein, precision fermentation, cultivated dairy, cultured dairy, animal free proteins,
cheese, future food, animal-free dairy
INTRODUCTION
Industrial animal agriculture is increasingly implicated as a root cause of many global problems. As
well as having a substantial negative impact on the environment (IPCC, 2018; Poore and Nemecek,
2018; Clark et al., 2020), modern animal agriculture inflicts unnecessary suffering on animals
(Pluhar, 2010; Anomaly, 2015) and exacerbates a variety of public health concerns including
zoonotic pathogens and antibiotic resistance (Karesh et al., 2012; Landers et al., 2012; Machalaba
et al., 2015). While consumers are increasingly aware of the ethical and environmental benefits
of vegetarian and vegan diets, they largely prefer to continue eating animal products on the basis
of price, taste, and convenience (Schenk et al., 2018; Bryant, 2019). Indeed, a UNDP (2021) survey
found that while around two-thirds of the global population consider climate change an emergency,
only 30% favoured a move towards plant-based diets to counteract this.
1 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
Providing and promoting viable alternatives to animal
products may be one of the most feasible strategies to address
this paradigm. Following the proliferation of plant-based dairy
alternatives, many companies have marketed plant-based meats,
and these are increasingly consumed (The Good Food Institute,
2021) and increasing in their ability to satisfy consumers (Bryant
and Sanctorum, 2021). At the same time, cultivated meat grown
from animal cells has gone from a proof-of-concept in 2013
to market approval in 2020 (Bryant, 2020), and research on
its adoption has proliferated in the past few years (Bryant and
Barnett, 2018, 2020).
One category of future foodstuffs that has been relatively
neglected is animal-free dairy, at the basis of which lies precision
fermentation technology. Precision fermentation is the process
of inserting specific genes into the DNA backbone of single-
cell organisms and optimising the expression of the proteins
that these genes code for. Precision fermentation is a long-
established technology, harnessed to synthesise compounds that
would otherwise be expensive and complicated to acquire.
Common examples of high-value materials derived from
precision fermentation include insulin and rennet (a compound
traditionally obtained from calf stomachs that even today is
used in the production of many popular types of cheese), but
as the costs associated with precision fermentation decline, the
compounds this technology can produce will start to reach cost-
competitiveness with a wider range of traditional materials. A
number of companies, including the co-authors of this paper,
Formo, are utilising precision fermentation to synthesise dairy
proteins, creating a variety of products that will soon be
cost-competitive with conventional dairy. In harnessing these
production techniques dairy products are produced that are
identical to conventional dairy in form, content, nutrition,
and taste without the attendant issues of conventional dairy
production (Datar et al., 2016).
Conventional dairy production entails processes that
contribute to climate change, acidification, eutrophication, and
ozone depletion (van der Werf et al., 2009; Djekic et al., 2014),
and its overall carbon footprint is comparable to that of aviation
and shipping combined (FAO, 2019; Ritchie and Roser, 2020).
The environmental impact of cheese, in particular, is higher
per kilo than that of milk and yoghourt (Djekic et al., 2014). Life
cycle assessments have estimated that, compared to conventional
dairy products, animal-free dairy products use 65% less energy,
91% less land, and 98% less water, while emitting 84% less
greenhouse gases (Steer, 2015).
As well as environmental advantages, animal-free dairy
circumvents the need to use animals, and the associated moral
concerns (Milburn, 2018). In the dairy industry, female cows are
repeatedly impregnated and have their calves taken from them
at birth so that we can take their milk, causing great distress to
both the mother and calf (see Lymbery and Oakeshott, 2014).
Animal-free dairy products require no such process since they
do not use animals.
Data indicates that dairy products seem to be particularly
difficult to give up. In a survey of motivated vegans, vegetarians,
and meat-reducers, Humane League Labs (2014) found that dairy
was the food that respondents most often said they found hard
to give up. Of respondents, 49% said that dairy was difficult to
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
remove from their diet, compared to just 34% who said eggs were
hard to avoid, 17% who said fish and seafood, 11% who said
chicken, and just 3% who said beef and pork were challenging
to abstain from. Similarly, Grassian (2020) identifies a hierarchy
of foods that those reducing their animal product consumption
prioritise and found that those abstaining from animal products
were least likely to avoid dairy and eggs compared to other animal
products. Therefore, it is likely that cheese is “the one food”
that people wanting to make firm reductions in animal product
consumption struggle most acutely to give up.
There is some research on consumer views of animal-
free dairy products. The Grocer (2018) surveyed 1,061 UK
consumers, finding that 28% said they would purchase “synthetic
milk,” 32% said they would not, and 40% were unsure.
Interestingly, this data indicated higher acceptance of animal-free
dairy than animal-free meat: the same organisation published
comparable consumer data on the latter in 2017 (The Grocer,
2017), finding that just 16% of British consumers said they
would eat cultivated meat. The types of concerns observed were
similar: with respect to animal-free dairy, 50% were worried
about what chemicals or ingredients it would contain, 43% said
it was unnatural, and 37% worried about possible long-term
side effects.
However, the research on this topic is extremely limited,
especially compared to consumer research on cultivated meat.
The data cited from The Grocer (2018) is from a non-peer
reviewed industry survey, only covers consumers in the UK,
and gave participants some limited information on “synthetic
dairy.” Therefore, the present study sought to assess consumer
acceptance of animal-free dairy in five key markets. In particular,
we addressed the following research questions:
1. What is the overall level of consumer interest in animal-free
dairy in Brazil, Germany, India, the United Kingdom, and
the United States?
2. How do consumers in these countries perceive specific
features of animal-free dairy, including taste, healthiness,
and safety?
3. What differences are there between the five countries in terms
of acceptance of animal-free dairy?
4. Which demographic factors and beliefs about animal-free
dairy predict purchase intent in each country?
5. Which perceptions of animal-free dairy products predict
purchase intent in each country?
METHODS
Participants
Participants were recruited from each of the five different
countries via the research panels Dynata and SurveyGo. A
redeemable points incentive, facilitated and distributed by the
research panels, was paid out to respondents who fully completed
the online survey - these incentives varied across countries
and demographics and utilised research panels’ reward systems
to pay participants. We aimed to recruit a sample of 1,000
participants from each country in order to achieve good
sample representativeness and sufficient power for between- and
within-country analyses. The final sample size represented 5,054
2 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
individuals, with 1,020 respondents from Brazil, 1,051 from
Germany, 825 from India, 1,249 from the UK and 1,009 from
the USA.
Four interlocking quotas per country (dictated by age and
gender) were implemented by the panelling agency to ensure
that samples were representative of true country populations.
Despite this, the incidence rates amongst more granular groups,
especially 18–25 s diverged from true population figures thus
weightings were subsequently applied to generate results more
accurately representative of whole country populations over the
age of 18.
Due to lower internet access and usage, particularly in India
and Brazil, sampled populations from these countries skewed
towards richer and more urbanised individuals in comparison to
overall statistics for the respective populations at large. It is worth
noting, however, that these demographic groups represent those
most likely to be in a geographic and societal position to engage
with, sample and purchase animal-free dairy products upon their
imminent market arrival.
Participants who did not consent to take part in the study
were removed from the survey, as well as those who failed at
least one of two attention check measures that were interspersed
throughout the survey. Whilst not initially designed to highlight
fake or automated responses, three questions requiring text input
from respondents also drew attention to fabricated responses,
where automated machines filled out surveys to extract the
incentive fee. These responses were often identically repeated
between multiple observations and showed total irrelevance
to the posed questions. Individual observations that exhibited
answers such as these were removed from the dataset and
replacement respondents were provided by the panelling agency.
Across the five different countries, a total of 15,638 respondents
were recruited to complete the survey. Once distilled by screener
questions, quota limits and data quality checks, a final sample size
of 5,054 was reached.
The initial screener prescribed spending sufficient time
studying the 160-word background text on precision
fermentation-derived protein manufacturing methods
(determined as over 15 seconds). This screener question
was deemed necessary for two reasons: to establish that the
final sample represented individuals completing the survey in
a sufficiently conscientious manner, and secondly to ensure
that all participants gave responses in the context of requisite
background information. The process of how this background
information was formulated is discussed in section Materials. A
total of 6,079 respondents were removed from the survey as a
result of this screener. A further 734 respondents were removed
from the survey for failing the second attention check, a question
prompting them to select the indicated option from a possible
five. A total of 3,325 respondents exceeded predetermined age
and gender quotas and thus were redirected back to the panel.
Lastly, 346 responses were removed manually for providing
nonsensical or bot-generated text responses to the text entry
questions. The propensity to be screened out at these stages was
correlated with certain demographic traits, namely young male
groups, and as a result, these groups were “topped-up” by the
panelling agency to ensure as balanced samples as possible.
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
Procedure and Measures
This study received ethical approval from the Psychology
Research Ethics Committee at the University of Bath. Participants
used a checkbox on the questionnaire to indicate their informed
consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Once consent was ratified, the initial section briefly outlined
the background and purpose of the research project, as well as
detailing data and anonymity protocols that would be followed
with participants’ data.
The next section asked for information regarding age and
gender to facilitate redirects when demographic quotas were met.
The following section provided the requisite background
information on the nature and processes involved in the
production of animal-free dairy cheese. It is acknowledged that
the framing of novel technologies, especially food products,
significantly affects attitudes and acceptance rates of these
products (Bryant and Dillard, 2019). Recognising this, the
substance and formulation of the introductory passage were
carefully considered, discussed fully in the Materials section.
The next section of questions gauged respondents’
comprehension of the background information, with six
questions checking their understanding in a series of true/false
questions. When respondents selected the wrong answer this
information was subsequently clarified in short bullet points.
This resulted in all respondents ending with a roughly similar
baseline understanding of the process of fermentation-based
protein production and the traits of a product made through
these means.
The following section posed the questions of how likely
respondents would be to try, purchase and regularly purchase
animal-free cheese products, with respondents choosing an
answer on a 5-point semantic differential scale, corresponding
to answers ranging from “Definitely Not” to “Definitely.”
Participants were then encouraged to write short and more
nuanced answers to the questions surrounding their personal
opinions on three aspects of animal-free dairy cheese and
attitudes to their manufacture.
The next section measured respondents’ dietary habits and
behaviour, indicating how they define their diet, as well as
describing their dietary habits in terms of consumption.
Respondents were then asked to rate various cheese products
out of seven, across seven different attributes; tasty, ethical,
environmentally friendly, natural, safe, healthy and nutritious.
Each product was accompanied by a picture of an exemplar
product, set against a neutral background, devoid of garnish or
elaboration. Products were displayed in a randomised sequence
to control for order effects. The animal-free cheese product
was represented by an image of a standard depiction of
mozzarella/paneer. This was deemed appropriate since animal-
free dairy cheese products will bear a high likeness to traditional
cheese products. The display of images and product ratings
were conducted in the latter part of the survey so as not to
condition the overall willingness to try and buy figures that
respondents gave.
Demographic questions were then put to participants,
including questions on education, political views, religiosity,
degree of urbanisation and household income.
3 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
Finally, respondents were asked a series of questions to
gauge their opinions on a wider range of political and lifestyle
themes, highlighting areas including neophobia, aversion to
unnaturalness, trust in technology and attitudes towards climate
change. Participants were then debriefed, thanked for their time,
and redirected to the survey panels to receive compensation.
Materials
The conversation surrounding the nomenclature of animal-
free dairy cheese has not yet gathered the same momentum
nor research focus as the naming of clean-meat products, yet
choosing and coordinating a name for this class of products
remains an essential step in bringing animal-free protein
products to market. This is all the more the case in light
of the European Union’s 2020 ruling, Amendment 171, to
prohibit alternative-dairy products from being able to show their
products in settings associated with conventional dairy products
or even reference traditional dairy, especially regarding health
or environmental comparisons. This is in addition to previous
regulation from 2013 outlawing dairy-alternatives from being
labelled with names such as soy-milk, butter or indeed, cheese.
These pieces of legislation, strongly lobbied for by the dairy
industry, are likely to undermine the EU’s own environmental
and public health targets (Southey, 2021). As part of the EU’s
Green Deal framework, the EU laid out a strategy seeking
that “consumers should be empowered to choose sustainable
food and all actors in the food chain should see this as
their responsibility and opportunity,” an aim which would, on
the surface, run diametrically opposed to current regulation.
Reflecting this political situation, this survey did not use any
specific terminology while gauging consumer attitudes, seeking
to avoid strongly colouring audiences’ reactions to non-animal
derived proteins. Instead, a theoretical cheese product was
outlined, being launched by the company Legendairy Foods (the
former company name of Formo). Rooting the decision facing
respondents to a real, purchasable product provided conditions
more familiar to audiences than an otherwise abstract scenario.
For Brazil, Germany, the UK and the USA a mozzarella product
was outlined to respondents. This was a decision taken in light
of the global popularity of mozzarella cheese and the advanced
development of this cheese by Formo and other animal-free
cheese companies. Given the comparatively low annual sales of
mozzarella in India, a paneer product was instead presented
to respondents.
This product was thus simply referred to throughout the
survey as “Legendairy Mozzarella/Paneer,” avoiding intimidating
and unappetising terminology, yet also avoiding the term
“cheese.” This description, providing the conditions for the
results seen below, does undoubtedly build on consumers’
expectations and understanding of animal-derived cheese
products in a manner that the EU ruling attempts to suppress.
The extent to which it will be possible to refer to animal-free
protein products with the names of incumbent animal-based
products is yet to be determined, but it would be expected that
any lexical contortions mandated by government bodies would
reduce the likelihood of the public opting to try animal-free dairy
cheese products.
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
Similarly, the background information provided to
respondents should be expected to acutely colour respondents’
understanding and enthusiasm for animal-free dairy products.
This survey sought to carve a middle path between anticipated
narratives surrounding alternative protein, presenting a simple
and transparent overview of the gene-editing technology and
the processes involved in the development of animal-free dairy
products, before drawing parallels to fermentation processes
utilised in beer production. The passage highlighted the benefits
of proteins generated through these techniques yet consciously
avoided the hyperbole and fanfare likely to accompany pure
marketing, instead seeking to depict a more detached snapshot
of the conversation. The passage runs as follows:
“Legendairy foods is launching a new mozzarella product, made
without any animals involved.
Instead of relying on cows for milk, Legendairy uses a
process similar to that of beer or soy-sauce production where
microorganisms produce the ingredients. The main ingredients of
traditional cheese are the proteins whey and casein - these are what
the microorganism makes.
To begin this process, the part of cow DNA that makes milk proteins
is copied and inserted into the microorganisms’ genes.
Through fermentation, these microorganisms start to produce
proteins, just the same as the proteins a cow would make. These
proteins are collected from the microorganisms and turned into
products such as mozzarella. Real protein and real mozzarella.
Legendairy mozzarella production doesn’t involve any animals (nor
the antibiotics that animals are often fed), doesn’t contain lactose,
has a much lower carbon footprint than regular cheese and it tastes
and behaves exactly the same as regular mozzarella.”
This information and the scenarios laid down by this research
sought to simulate market conditions where animal-free dairy
products are available, and where consumer awareness and
understanding of these products is higher than it is currently.
The survey was distributed in three different languages,
English, Portuguese and German throughout November and
December 2020. The survey was translated into German and
Portuguese through a process of back-translation to ensure the
brevity and meaning of the survey was constant across countries.
This was carried out by freelance translators based in Brazil and
Germany, recruited through Fiverr. For the Indian survey, it was
elected that English would be used for the distribution given
the high degree of fluency amongst urban, younger generations,
alongside the extreme diversity of languages spoken across India,
even between immense urban centres (Salzmann et al., 2014). The
questions shown to respondents were identical across countries
aside from some demographic questions such as education and
household income, which differed to reflect differences between
the countries.
RESULTS
Demographics
Samples were weighted to be representative of national
populations in terms of age groups and gender. The post-
weighting demographic variables were very closely representative
of whole country populations in Germany, the UK and the USA.
4 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
Tertiary education completion in the weighted sample for each
of these countries was 30.7, 50.0, and 48.1% - corresponding
to OECD figures of 28.58, 45.96, and 45.67% respectively. In
India, the online polling led to fairly large divergences from
population representativeness. 82% of the weighted sample
were resident in big cities, whereas only 34.4% of the true
population lives in urban areas with similar divergence seen in
household income and education levels (World Bank, 2019).
The Brazilian sample was much closer to representativeness in
terms of urbanisation, yet did skew significantly more highly
educated and with higher household income than the general
population. These skews were expected in both Brazil and India.
In Figure 1, the distribution of self-defined political affiliations
across the countries is displayed, showing a relatively balanced
distribution of conservative, moderate and liberal respondents
within countries. Since participants were required to answer this
question, it is possible that those indicating they are “moderate”
represent those with no political opinions as well as “centrists.”
Overall Acceptance
Strong enthusiasm for animal-free dairy cheese was
demonstrated across all five countries; a majority of respondents
in every country were not just willing to sample animal-free
dairy cheese, but expressed a desire to purchase animal-free dairy
cheese, with a total of 70.5% of the weighted samples stating they
would probably or definitely buy such a product. Even when
asked whether they would be likely to regularly purchase, an
average of 49.8% of respondents from each country stated they
would probably or definitely do so.
Figures 2–4 depict the extent of acceptance across the five
individual countries. Enthusiasm was highly pronounced in
Brazil and India, where respectively 92.0 and 93.4% of people
would probably or definitely try animal-free dairy cheese. These
numbers were lower yet still substantial for Germany, the UK
and the USA where 75.9, 67.6, and 64.9% would probably or
definitely try animal-free dairy cheese. When probing greater
enthusiasm for animal-free dairy cheese, 85.5 and 91.1% of
the Brazilian and Indian weighted sample would probably or
definitely purchase an animal-free dairy product. In Germany,
62.7% claimed they would probably or definitely purchase an
animal-free dairy cheese while in the USA and the UK, 53.8
and 58.5% deemed themselves as probably or definitely likely
to purchase. Compared to the UK and Germany, the USA
was on average slightly less enthusiastic, but exhibited more
polarised responses, with a higher proportion of respondents
at each end of the scale, stating in greater numbers that
they would either definitely purchase or that they definitely
would not.
The final question in this section asked participants whether
they would be willing to regularly purchase an animal-free
dairy cheese product. Despite inviting a substantial indication
of commitment, a sizeable portion of respondents remained
keen; 68.0% in Brazil, 36.1% in Germany, 73.9% in India, 34.6%
in the UK and 36.3% in the USA stated they would probably
or definitely regularly purchase animal-free dairy cheese. The
weighted data here indicates a large tranche of populations across
countries not knowing whether they would regularly purchase
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
an animal-free dairy mozzarella, presumably needing to sample
products before firmly committing to future behaviour.
Product Perceptions
The second portion of key variables captured respondents’
perceptions of animal-free dairy cheese and several incumbent
products across seven different areas, measured using a 7-
point Likert scale rating (1 = negative perception, 7 = positive
perception). Alongside animal-free cheese respondents were
asked to rate “premium mozzarella/paneer,” “‘basic supermarket
mozzarella/paneer” and “vegan nut-based cheese.”
All these products would be considered direct competition for
animal-free dairy cheeses once they enter the market, thus the
ratings depicted exhibit the basis on which consumers can be
expected to embrace or reject animal-free dairy cheeses. Figure 5
depicts an overview of the aggregated ratings from all 5 countries
for the different cheese types.
In terms of tastiness, animal-free cheese was rated across
countries as being materially less tasty than the premium
incumbent product, yet similar to a mass-market basic cheese
product. In all countries, vegan nut-based cheese was rated
significantly below all three alternative products, including
animal-free cheese.
Across all countries, animal-free cheese was perceived
clearly as the most ethical and environmental product that
participants rated, followed by the nut-based vegan product.
Premium and basic products were rated significantly behind
animal-free cheese. In Germany and the UK especially,
animal-derived cheeses were considered significantly
less ethical and environmentally friendly than in the
other countries.
Animal-free cheese was typically rated as the least natural
of the four products apart from in Brazil, where animal-free
mozzarella was considered as more natural than basic mozzarella
and premium mozzarella, yet less natural than vegan nut-
based cheeses. In Germany, the US and the UK, the perceived
naturalness was lower than in the other countries, hovering
just below the midpoint value of 4. This juxtaposes with Brazil
and India, where the average ratings were both above 5 out
of 7.
Ratings of safety across countries followed a similar pattern,
with both India and Brazil ranking animal-free cheese relatively
highly in terms of safety, assessing it as safer than the basic
incumbent product, higher than the premium product in Brazil
and the vegan product in India. In Germany, the UK and
USA animal-free cheese was clustered closely next to the
vegan and basic products, albeit rated slightly lower. In all
three of these countries, the premium product was dubbed
the safest.
The rankings of healthiness and nutritiousness were generally
similar between countries, with animal-free cheese rated similarly
to basic cheeses and vegan nut-based options. The significance of
these perceptions in driving consumption decisions is analysed in
section Within Country Regressions.
Figure 6 shows a direct comparison in perceptions between
an animal-free dairy cheese and a basic animal-derived
mozzarella/paneer, with ratings for the basic product subtracted
5 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
FIGURE 1 | Self-defined political views of the post-weighting sample.
FIGURE 2 | Willingness to try animal-free dairy cheese across countries.
from the animal-free dairy product. The coloured lines represent
the perceptions from across the five different countries.
As discussed above, this figure illustrates how animal-free
dairy is trusted to perform equally in terms of flavour,
nutritional value and healthiness to basic mozzarella/paneer,
yet is recognised to far exceed these basic cheeses in
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
terms of ethical and environmental credentials. The graph
further illustrates the varying strength of feeling across
countries, showing Brazilian and Indian consumers as seeing
the strongest advantages over basic animal-derived cheeses,
but with respondents from all countries adjudging animal-
free cheese as comparably nutritious, healthy and tasty as
6 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy

FIGURE 3 | Willingness to buy animal-free dairy cheese across countries.

FIGURE 4 | Willingness to regularly buy animal-free dairy cheese across countries.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 7 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy

FIGURE 5 | Average perceptions of different cheese products from across countries.

FIGURE 6 | Average difference in rating between basic animal-derived and animal-free cheese from across countries.

a basic animal-derived cheese. The product was noted as Cross-Country Comparisons

being distinctly less natural than basic cheese in all countries, Our next analyses compared the average responses given to
apart from in Brazil where cheese produced using precision questions about willingness to try, buy, and regularly buy
fermentation techniques was understood to be more natural than animal-free dairy cheese across countries using a series of
basic mozzarella. one-way ANOVAs. The results are shown in Table 1.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 8 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
TABLE 1 | ANOVAs showing differences between countries in animal-free dairy enthusiasm.
Brazil Germany
(M, SD) (M, SD)
Willing to try* 4.60a 3.98b
(0.73) (1.13)
Willing to buy* 4.35a 3.67b
(0.83) (1.12)
Willing to buy regularly* 3.96a 3.18b
(0.92) (1.00)
*Indicates significant differences between countries on this measure.
Lack of shared superscript letters indicate significant differences between particular countries.
Within each row, shared superscript letters indicate no
significant difference between two values. Values which do not
share a superscript letter are significantly different from one
another. For example, in the second row, the score for the
UK (marked with b and c) is significantly different from Brazil
(marked with a only), while it is not significantly different from
Germany (marked with b only) or the USA (marked with c only),
though Germany and the USA differ from each other.
As shown, willingness to try, buy, and buy regularly, animal-
free was generally highest in Brazil and India, followed by
Germany, and lowest (although still above the midpoint of 3)
in the UK and the USA. This confirms the differences observed
in section Overall Acceptance and demonstrates which countries
differ significantly in attitudes towards the products.
Within Country Regressions
Next, a series of linear regressions were generated to both identify
the groups of consumers most likely to respond positively to
the emergence of animal-free dairy cheese and the underlying
product perceptions that contribute towards enthusiasm for the
product. Regressions were run for each country individually,
with willingness to buy used as the dependent variable, coding
respondents’ answers as 1 (“definitely would not purchase”) to 5
(“definitely would purchase”).
We ran two sets of regressions. In the first set of regressions,
we entered demographics as predictor variables. These models
were designed to identify the types of consumers most likely to
purchase animal-free dairy. In the second set of regressions, we
entered product ratings as predictor variables. These models were
designed to identify the key attitudes and beliefs which drive
purchase intent.
For the first set of regressions, 12 independent variables
pertaining to gender, age, diet, degree of urbanness, religiosity,
education and income levels were included, in addition to a
variable that captured respondents’ estimates of how often they
consumed cheese. The results of these regressions are displayed
in Table 2, with significant results highlighted.
The regressions reveal that the variable that offered the
strongest predictor of a willingness to buy an animal-free
cheese product was how frequently a respondent currently
consumes cheese. This was the case across every country
studied, indicating strong potential markets for animal-free dairy
cheese far beyond the traditional markets served by non-dairy
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
India UK USA ANOVA
(M, SD) (M, SD) (M, SD)
4.52a 3.80c 3.75c F (4, 5164) = 151.812, p < 0.001
(0.72) (1.18) (1.25)
4.45a 3.57bc 3.53c F (4, 5164) = 176.949, p < 0.001
(0.76) (1.14) (1.24)
3.97a 3.11b 3.17b F (4, 5164) = 186.091, p < 0.001
(0.87) (1.08) (1.20)
cheeses of vegans and those who are lactose intolerant. This
relationship also counters an eventuality foreseen where “cheese
purists” would reject cheese products made through precision
fermentation; on the contrary, the opposite appears to be true.
This relationship between cheese consumption and willingness to
purchase animal-free dairy cheese was seen to be weaker in India
than in the other studied countries, where there exists less of a
cheese culture.
It was also indicated that younger consumers were more likely
to be willing to purchase animal-free dairy cheese, mirroring
findings from similar research on cultivated meat acceptance
(Bryant and Barnett, 2020). This was true for every country apart
from Brazil, where no significant relationship was found between
age and willingness to buy. We found in Brazil that purchase
intent was higher for women, yet this was the only country where
a significant relationship was found between gender and purchase
intent. Income was not a significant predictor of purchase
intent in Brazil, India or the UK, but showed a slight negative
relationship with purchase intent in Germany and the USA.
Those identifying as more politically liberal indicated a higher
likelihood of purchasing in the UK and USA whereas the opposite
was true in Brazil where political conservatism was associated
with an increased likelihood of purchasing animal-free cheese. It
appears that the few objections to animal-free cheese came from
very liberal people in Brazil.
In terms of an urban-rural divide in acceptance, no significant
relationships were observed for Brazil, Germany, India or the
USA, yet a small relationship was found between living in a
more urban area and increased purchase intent in the UK. Level
of education was not a strong predictor of acceptance in any
country apart from India, where a strong positive relationship
was observed between education and willingness to purchase.
Religiosity had a weak positive relationship in the UK and a
weak negative relationship in Germany. In other countries, no
significant relationship was observed between religiosity and
purchase intent.
Central to understanding the dynamics of consumer
acceptance of animal-free dairy cheese is how association with
different dietary groups affects product acceptance, especially
in light of broad societal shifts in dietary patterns, particularly
in the west (for example, the significant rise of flexitarianism,
vegetarianism and veganism in the UK; Mintel, 2019). Treating
omnivorism as a baseline, flexitarianism was the strongest
9 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy

TABLE 2 | Regression models showing demographic and dietary predictors (standardised β) of intention to purchase animal-free dairy cheese in Brazil, Germany, India,
the UK and the USA.

Brazil Germany India UK USA

Adj R2 = 0.107 Adj R2 = 0.087 Adj R2 = 0.074 Adj R2 = 0.118 Adj R2 = 0.171

Beta p Beta p Beta p Beta p Beta p

Age −0.01 0.736 − 0.111 <0.001 − 0.095 0.01 − 0.084 0.003 − 0.182 <0.001
Female 0.091 0.003 −0.043 0.164 0.059 0.08 0.015 0.591 −0.045 0.137
Other gender −0.01 0.745 −0.043 0.155 −0.008 0.81 −0.05 0.071 0.002 0.951
Flexitarian 0.131 <0.001 0.21 <0.001 0.076 0.04 0.164 <0.001 0.151 <0.001
Vegetarian 0.134 <0.001 0.09 0.003 0.018 0.62 0.063 0.021 0.069 0.017
Pescetarian −0.045 0.129 0.07 0.019 −0.016 0.64 0.066 0.015 −0.032 0.274
Vegan 0.049 0.098 0.068 0.025 0.064 0.06 0.027 0.313 0.043 0.14
Urbanness 0.008 0.787 −0.037 0.226 0.044 0.209 − 0.053 0.049 −0.017 0.563
Education 0.002 0.959 0.003 0.93 0.164 <0.001 −0.034 0.238 0.017 0.626
Political Views − 0.119 <0.001 0.032 0.30 0.041 0.251 0.119 <0.001 0.117 <0.001
Religious 0.001 0.969 − 0.065 0.03 0.042 0.234 0.086 0.002 0.012 0.689
Household Income 0.013 0.695 −0.052 0.11 0.064 0.083 0.07 0.014 − 0.057 0.093
Cheese consumption 0.228 <0.001 0.190 <0.001 0.128 0.001 0.179 <0.001 0.248 <0.001

Highlighted cells (where p < 0.05) indicate that this variable significantly predicted purchase intent within the country.

dietary predictor of willingness to purchase in every surveyed
country, with only cheese consumption providing a stronger
overall predictor for animal-free dairy cheese preferences than
flexitarianism. Notably, veganism, whilst a positive predictor
for willingness to purchase, exhibited a weaker relationship
than vegetarianism, pescetarianism or flexitarianism, aside from
in India.
The second portion of the regression analyses focused on
inherent product perceptions and how these predict purchase
intent. These were rated by survey respondents on a scale
from 1 to 7. The R squared values for this set of regressions
were higher than the demographic and dietary focused analysis,
indicating that the perceptions of products form a stronger basis
for acceptance than the intrinsic characteristics of individuals.
The results of these regressions are depicted in Table 3.
Across all countries, higher perceptions of tastiness served
as the strongest predictor of purchase intent, with the strongest
effects seen in the UK and Brazil. This mirrors findings seen
in research surrounding willingness to purchase cultivated meat,
and points to the centrality of product performance in any future
consumer shifts.
In Germany, India and the UK perceiving animal-free cheese
as more ethical was a significant predictor of willingness to
purchase, acting after tastiness as the strongest predictor of
intention to purchase. In India and the UK, rating the product
as more environmentally friendly predicted higher purchase
intent, while in other countries significant differences in purchase
intention were not observed as being dependent on differences in
environmental friendliness perceptions. In the USA and UK, a
weak but positive relationship was observed between perceptions
of naturalness and intention to purchase. In the USA, perceptions
of safety and healthiness also showed positive predictive power,
with healthiness also observed as a significant predictor in
Germany. Nutritiousness was not a significant predictor in any
of the surveyed countries.
DISCUSSION
This paper aimed to provide initial insight into anticipated
consumer acceptance of animal-free dairy cheeses from across
five different countries. In the absence of prior research into the
acceptance of precision fermentation-derived consumer goods,
the most consequential finding of this study is simply the
scale and extent of consumer willingness to try, purchase and
regularly purchase animal-free dairy cheese. Alongside this, the
low levels of outright rejection (“probably” or “definitely not”
trying amongst 2.1% in Brazil, 8.6% in Germany, 1.9% in India,
14.7% in the UK and 17.2% in the USA) provides an immensely
strong signal that when animal-free dairy cheese products are
made available they will address a diverse and fertile market, with
the vast majority of populations across all surveyed countries
open to trying such products and with a clear majority in
every country stating that they would probably or definitely buy
animal-free dairy cheese when it arrives on the market. These
high levels of enthusiasm were particularly notable in Brazil and
India, while acknowledging the skew towards urban and educated
demographics within the sampled populations.
The evidence from this research suggests animal-free dairy
proteins will help facilitate lifestyle shifts that can reflect public
support for climate change mitigation, ethical concerns around
the livestock industry and prevention of zoonotic diseases, with
consumers seeing that animal-free dairy will allow a continuation
of the most pleasurable aspects of their current diets while
assuaging some of the most harmful effects of their current
consumption. Tetrapak and Lund University collaborated in

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 10 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy

TABLE 3 | Regression models showing product characteristic predictors (standardised β) of intention to purchase animal-free dairy cheese in Brazil, Germany, India, the
UK and the USA.

Brazil Germany India UK USA

Adj R2 = 0.232 Adj R2 = 0.373 Adj R2 = 0.192 Adj R2 = 0.391 Adj R2 = 0.383

Beta p Beta p Beta p Beta p Beta p

Constant
Tasty 0.298 <0.001 0.259 <0.001 0.197 <0.001 0.396 <0.001 0.263 <0.001
Ethical 0.037 0.428 0.151 0.001 0.174 0.001 0.131 0.004 0.022 0.637
Envmnt 0.048 0.286 0.008 0.842 0.096 0.048 0.108 0.014 0.026 0.571
Natural 0.015 0.720 0.053 0.169 0.018 0.697 0.094 0.003 0.101 0.016
Safe 0.026 0.643 0.073 0.125 0.041 0.529 0.045 0.261 0.111 0.044
Healthy 0.094 0.145 0.181 0.001 0.000 1.000 −0.075 0.091 0.149 0.029
Nutritious 0.058 0.308 −0.005 0.923 0.001 0.988 0.038 0.394 0.042 0.508

Highlighted cells (where p<0.05) indicate that this variable significantly predicted purchase intent within the country.

2020 on research surrounding the evolution of the dairy industry,
seeing the dual dimensions of technological transition and socio-
environmental forces as the key determinants of the extent of
change in the dairy industry (Kalling et al.). Their research
foresaw that should fermentation-derived dairy products gain
both scaled-up technological viability and consumer acceptance,
then between 35–50% of the 2030 dairy market could be sourced
via animal-free dairy. Our research suggests that consumers will
be receptive to dairy products made via precision fermentation,
thus offering support for a forecast of a 2030 dairy market with
animal-free dairy playing a sizeable role.
When juxtaposed against research into animal-free meat
acceptance, the findings of this research suggest that animal-
free dairy cheeses will see both faster adoption and less societal
pushback than cultivated meat products. All of the countries
examined in this research have previously been surveyed
regarding preferences for cultivated meat:
• In Brazil, 63% of consumers were found willing to try cell-
based meat (Valente et al., 2019)
• In Germany, 57% of consumers were willing to try cultivated
meat (Weinrich et al., 2020)
• In India, 48.7% of consumers said they would be very or
extremely likely to purchase cultivated meat (Bryant et al.,
2019)
• In the USA 65.3% of consumers would try In Vitro meat (Wilks
and Phillips, 2017)
• In the UK 18.2% of consumers said they would be willing to
try cultivated meat (SurveyGoo, 2018).
Apart from the US (where marginally stronger support for
animal-free dairy was seen), markedly more enthusiasm for
animal-free dairy was visible in every country when comparing
to statistics for cultivated meat. Across Brazil, Germany, India
and the UK, the present study observed substantially higher rates
of acceptance for animal-free dairy. This mirrors a preference
for animal-free dairy over cultivated meat in research by The
Grocer (2017, 2018). The difference is perhaps due to decreased
squeamishness in comparison to manufactured flesh or as a by-
product of consumers’ acknowledgement of cheese as a product
already deviating from food “as nature intended.” Further,
several studies have shown that familiarity with relevant food
technologies is a strong predictor of willingness to consume
food produced through novel means (Bryant and Barnett,
2020), thus as knowledge of precision fermentation technology
increases, willingness to consume will likely rise in parallel.
Recognising that dialogue surrounding cultivated meat has
been more apparent and longstanding than that of precision
fermentation made foodstuffs suggests that the margins between
cultivated meat and animal-free dairy acceptance may reach even
greater levels once animal-free dairy technologies become more
prominent in public discourse.
A strong indicator that animal-free dairy products will
intersect the dual desires of reduced planetary costs and an
aversion to lifestyle sacrifices was shown within the regression
analysis: a strong relationship emerging between current levels
of cheese consumption and desire to purchase animal-free
cheese. Rather than predicting an aversion to consuming non-
animal derived cheese, higher levels of cheese consumption
were associated with an increased desire for animal-free
dairy cheese. This suggests that animal-free dairy products
can expect to see widespread market appeal, far beyond the
niches of the current vegan cheese categories, and will likely
see most interest from ardent cheese consumers seeking to
reduce rather than eliminate their consumption of animal-
derived cheese.
Another stark finding was that, of all dietary variables,
flexitarianism was the strongest predictor of willingness to
buy, with large, statistically significant relationships observed
in Brazil, Germany, the UK and the USA. Taken alongside the
growing numbers of people identifying as flexitarian across the
world (Bryant et al., 2020), this finding provides further evidence
that many people will be ready to incorporate animal-free dairy
products into their diet as part of an effort to reduce consumption
of animal products. The fact that flexitarianism was associated
with higher willingness to buy than veganism further indicates
that animal-free dairy will be most enthusiastically adopted not
by those who have already transitioned to plant-based diets,
rather the larger group of consumers seeking to gradually modify

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 11 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
their consumption patterns, maintaining some forms of animal
products in their diet.
The linear regression model also revealed the wide
demographic appeal of precision fermentation protein products,
with either statistically insignificant or weaker effects indicated
by the degree of urbanness, education, income and even political
beliefs. When considering these findings together with the large
outright percentage of society showing a willingness to purchase
animal-free dairy products, it is apparent that even beyond diet, a
diversity of consumers will be attracted to animal-free dairy. The
weak statistical influence of the aforementioned variables shows
that regardless of inherent characteristics, many understand
the benefits of reducing consumption of animal products and
consider animal-free dairy a feasible and attractive means of
achieving this. While age was a strong predictor across countries
and liberalness was associated with moderate predictive power
in the UK and USA, the results mostly indicated that consumers
from all kinds of groups are likely to be open to consuming
animal-free dairy.
When studying the perceptions of animal-free dairy in
comparison to incumbent products, consumers adjudge animal-
free dairy products as comprehensively more environmentally
friendly and more ethical than alternatives, including current
vegan offerings. Given the background information provided,
consumers expect animal-free dairy products to be less tasty
than premium animal-derived products, substantially more tasty
than vegan cheese products and comparably tasty to mid-market
cheese products. Seeing this data in light of widespread product
enthusiasm suggests a potential for animal-free dairy cheese to
consolidate a commercial position as a mass-market product.
The radar plot comparison against basic mozzarella further
showed that respondents expect animal-free dairy cheese to
be as tasty, as safe, more nutritious and healthier than basic
cheese. These findings show the clear advantages consumers
recognise of animal-free dairy over traditional products in several
respects and add further colour to a picture showing consumers
as trusting of precision fermentation technology to safely and
nutritionally deliver a tasty product, which, when factoring in
the acknowledged environmental and ethical upsides, results
in the widespread willingness to purchase that was seen. This
willingness to purchase rests heavily on these expectations which,
seen in the second set of regressions, rests principally on taste.
Meeting expectations of flavour and performance will thus be
paramount for new products to deliver any major consumption
patterns shifts.
There are several limitations to the present study worth
noting. First, since there are no animal-free dairy cheese products
currently available to consumers, we were only able to observe
consumers’ self-reported hypothetical preferences. Whilst we
sought to lay bare the nature of animal-free dairy by providing
a straightforward and neutral account of the process and its
impacts, we are not able to account for how preferences may
be shaped by future marketing efforts by animal-free dairy
companies or indeed lobbying efforts against them. This research
further took place in an unclarified legal environment, making
it yet unclear as to what regulatory bindings will apply when
animal-free dairy products reach market. Should particularly
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
severe naming restrictions be applied to animal-free dairy then
an encumbered consumer uptake of these new products could
be anticipated. Further, although we made a good effort to
obtain representative samples, some demographics were skewed,
particularly in the Brazilian and Indian samples. That said, strong
data quality protocols and participant rejection thresholds mean
that the data quality is likely a strength of this study.
Future research should aim to expand on these findings,
investigating in more detail the types of messaging and
product positioning which may be optimal for animal-free dairy
products. One particular area which needs further research
is nomenclature; this has been an important issue in the
cultivated meat field (Bryant and Barnett, 2019) but there is
not yet comparable attention given to the naming of animal-
free dairy.
CONCLUSIONS
As the cost of animal-free dairy ingredients decreases and
their market debut approaches, this study offers the first
comprehensive examination of how consumers will react to
this new class of products, in particular cheese. The research
found strong enthusiasm across countries for trying, buying and
regularly buying animal-free dairy cheese products. An average
of 78.8% of consumers across the five different countries defined
themselves as probably or definitely likely to try such a product,
with 70.5% probably or definitely intending to buy the product.
This suggests the potential for a significant emerging role for
animal-free dairy products in the wider cheese market, currently
valued globally at US$190.6 billion (Statista, 2020), with the
capacity to massively expand the footprint of the current non-
animal cheese category, which has a current annual market
value of US$1.2 billion (Businesswire, 2020). The findings of this
paper show the strongest enthusiasm and smallest opposition
to animal-free dairy in Brazil and India, while also showing a
majority of consumers in Germany, the UK and the USA as
probably or definitely intent on purchasing animal-free dairy
cheese products.
The findings of this paper also reveal the hurdles facing
consumer acceptance of animal-free dairy to be substantially
lower than those confronting cultivated meat products,
notwithstanding that public awareness and discourse
surrounding animal-free dairy is significantly less mature
than that of cultivated meat, a factor which serves as a noted
condition for widespread acceptance of novel technologies
(Mutahar et al., 2018). This research similarly began to uncork
the topic of why such clear consumer enthusiasm was observable,
showing consumers across countries as resoundingly recognising
the environmental and ethical improvements of animal-free
dairy over animal-derived products, as well as showing faith in
animal-free dairy to far outperform current iterations of plant-
based cheeses, expecting a product capable of delivering a taste
and nutritional experience similar to that of basic animal-derived
products. In a similar way, consumers showed clearly that they
did not perceive animal-free dairy to be any less safe than basic
animal-derived products.
12 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
More formally examining the relationship between
perceptions and willingness to purchase revealed that perceptions
of tastiness were key in determining willingness to purchase.
Showcasing the flavour and functionality of animal-free dairy
can thus be seen as a clear means to foster the uptake of animal-
free dairy products amongst those still sceptical. Fortunately,
the barriers to sampling animal-free dairy will be very low for
consumers, providing the opportunity for consumers to make
non-committal and low-cost “dabbles” before deciding whether
to consume on a more long-term basis (Rogers, 2010).
This research also found that the strongest predictor of any
outwardly observable variables were current levels of cheese
consumption. Rather than showing the most ardent cheese
consumers as averse to animal-free dairy products, this research
found the opposite, highlighting both the openness of consumers
to new products that can deliver familiar experiences and also
showcasing that the market for animal-free dairy will be primarily
driven by consumers not currently being served by the plant-
based cheese sector.
Examining the demographic factors associated with
willingness to purchase showed that diet was a strong predictor of
enthusiasm, with flexitarianism serving as the strongest dietary
predictor of willingness to consume. It can be anticipated that the
advent of animal-free dairy will “ride the tide” of growing global
numbers of flexitarians and consumers beginning to emotionally
internalise the negative impacts of their consumption. Further,
seeing flexitarianism as a stronger predictor of enthusiasm than
veganism points to the prospect of animal-free dairy being
embraced by societies transitioning in increments rather than
absolutes, beginning to both ask more questions and seek more
ownership and conviction in how and why they consume.
Whilst support trended younger in all countries, and with
mild political effects seen in Brazil, the UK and the USA, an
enduring takeaway of the demographic analysis points to a
diversity in those expressing enthusiasm for animal-free dairy,
with levels of education, income and urbanness either showing
weak or statistically insignificant relationships with willingness
to purchase. This points to both the potential breadth of
acceptance across swathes of society and also the low potential for
polarisation around the introduction of animal-free dairy. These
findings serve as yet another strong indicator that societies will
welcome the measured proliferation of precision fermentation-
derived products into their supermarkets, beyond their current
accepted forms as functional ingredients or medicines.
As the public awareness surrounding animal-free dairy
expands and dairy lobbies and regulator positions harden, further
research will be necessary to map the trajectory of consumer
REFERENCES
Anomaly, J. (2015). What’s wrong with factory farming? Public Health Ethics 8,
246–254. doi: 10.1093/phe/phu001
Bryant, C., and Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a
systematic review. Meat Sci. 143, 8–17. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.008
Bryant, C., and Barnett, J. (2020). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an
updated review (2018–2020). Applied Sci. 10:5201. doi: 10.3390/app10155201
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
acceptance, but the research carried out here shows that any
developments will take place against a backdrop of immense
latent enthusiasm. It is this enthusiasm that shows consumers
to be ready to embrace precision fermentation-derived products,
products that will reduce the environmental burden of food
production, alleviate animal suffering and drastically lengthen
the odds of humanity’s epidemiological dice games. The onus
is now resoundingly on companies to service this demand and
deliver products that can match the faith extended by consumers.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data is not readily available to outside researchers. Requests to
access the datasets should be directed to oscar@formo.bio.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and
approved by The Psychology Research Ethics Committee at
the University of Bath. The patients/participants provided their
written informed consent to participate in this study.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
OZT: conceptualisation, translation, and data collection. CB
and OZT: research design, survey instrument, data analysis,
and writing manuscript. CB: ethics application. All authors
contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
FUNDING
Funding for this project was provided by Formo (previously
Legendairy Foods), a company producing cheese products for
consumers via precision fermentation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Jo Anderson for her advice in setting up
the survey instrument and Raffa Wohlgensinger for the vision
and drive to make it all happen!
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.
2021.678491/full#supplementary-material
Bryant, C., and Dillard, C. (2019). The impact of framing on acceptance of cultured
meat. Front. Nutr. 6:103. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2019.00103
Bryant, C., and Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes:
comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in
two consecutive years. Appetite 161:105161. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
Bryant, C., Szejda, K., Parekh, N., Deshpande, V., and Tse, B. (2019). A survey of
consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in the USA, India, and
China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3:11. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00011
13 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491
Zollman Thomas and Bryant
Bryant, C., van Nek, L., and Rolland, N. (2020). European markets for
cultured meat: a comparison of Germany and France. Foods 9:1152.
doi: 10.3390/foods9091152
Bryant, C. J. (2019). We can’t keep meating like this: attitudes towards
vegetarian and vegan diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability 11:6844.
doi: 10.3390/su11236844
Bryant, C. J. (2020). Culture, meat, and cultured meat. J. Anim. Sci. 98:skaa172.
doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa172
Bryant, C. J., and Barnett, J. C. (2019). What’s in a name? Consumer
perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite 137, 104–113.
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021
Businesswire (2020). $4.42 Billion Vegan Cheese Market - Global Opportunity
Analysis and Industry Forecast 2021-2027. Available online at: https://www.
businesswire.com/news/home/20201218005220/en/4.42-Billion-Vegan-
Cheese-Market---Global-Opportunity-Analysis-and-Industry-Forecast-
2021-2027---ResearchAndMarkets.com (accessed June 17, 2021).
Clark, M. A., Domingo, N. G., Colgan, K., Thakrar, S. K., Tilman, D., Lynch, J., et al.
(2020). Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5◦ and 2◦
C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7357
Datar, I., Kim, E., and d’Origny, G. (2016). “New harvest,” in The Future of Meat
Without Animals, eds B. Donaldson, and C. Carter (Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield), 121–131.
Djekic, I., Miocinovic, J., Tomasevic, I., Smigic, N., and Tomic, N. (2014).
Environmental life-cycle assessment of various dairy products. J. Clean. Prod.
68, 64–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.054
FAO (2019). Climate Change and the Global Dairy Cattle Sector - The Role of the
Dairy Sector in a Low-Carbon Future. Rome: FAO.
Grassian, D. T. (2020). The dietary behaviors of participants in UK-based meat
reduction and vegan campaigns–a longitudinal, mixed-methods study. Appetite
154:104788. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104788
Humane League Labs (2014). Large-Scale Survey of Vegans, Vegetarians, and Meat
Reducers. Available online at: http://www.humaneleaguelabs.org/static/reports/
2014/04/diet-change-and-demographic-characteristics1.pdf (accessed June 17,
2021).
IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5◦ C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts
of Global Warming of 1.5◦ C Above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global
Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global
Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts
to Eradicate Poverty. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Kalling, T., Kärreman, M., Johansson, M., and Koch, C. (2020). Available online at:
https://www.tetrapak.com/de/about-tetra-pak/news-and-events/newsarchive/
scenarios-future-dairy-industry
Karesh, W. B., Dobson, A., Lloyd-Smith, J. O., Lubroth, J., Dixon, M. A., Bennett,
M., et al. (2012). Ecology of zoonoses: natural and unnatural histories. Lancet
380, 1936–1945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61678-X
Landers, T. F., Cohen, B., Wittum, T. E., and Larson, E. L. (2012). A review of
antibiotic use in food animals: perspective, policy, and potential. Public Health
Rep. 127, 4–22. doi: 10.1177/003335491212700103
Lymbery, P., and Oakeshott, I. (2014). Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap Meat.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Machalaba, C., Daszak, P., Karesh, W. B., and Romanelli, C. (2015). Anthropogenic
Drivers of Emerging Infectious Diseases. United Nations Global Sustainable
Development Report Briefs.
Milburn, J. (2018). Death-free dairy? The ethics of clean milk. J. Agric. Environ.
Ethics 31, 261–279. doi: 10.1007/s10806-018-9723-x
Mintel (2019). UK Meat-Free Foods Market Report 2019. Available online
at: https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/plant-based-push-
uk-sales-of-meat-free-foods-shoot-up-40-between-2014-19 (accessed June
17, 2021).
Mutahar, A. M., Daud, N. M., Ramayah, T., Isaac, O., and Aldholay, A. H.
(2018). The effect of awareness and perceived risk on the technology acceptance
model (TAM): mobile banking in Yemen. Int. J. Serv. Stand. 12, 180–204.
doi: 10.1504/IJSS.2018.091840
Pluhar, E. B. (2010). Meat and morality: alternatives to factory farming. J. Agric.
Environ. Ethics 23, 455–468. doi: 10.1007/s10806-009-9226-x
Poore, J., and Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through
producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org
Consumer Acceptance of Animal-Free Dairy
Ritchie, H., and Roser, M. (2020). Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online
at: https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed June 17,
2021).
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Salzmann, Z., Stanlaw, J., and Adachi, N. (2014). Language, Culture, and Society:
An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. New York, NY: Avalon Publishing.
Schenk, P., Rössel, J., and Scholz, M. (2018). Motivations and constraints of meat
avoidance. Sustainability 10:3858. doi: 10.3390/su10113858
Southey, F. (2021). “Plant-based dairy censorship”: Oatly, Upfield and ProVeg
Petition to Overthrow Amendment 171. Food Navigator. Available online at:
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/01/14/How-Oatly-Upfield-and-
ProVeg-plan-to-overthrow-Amendment-171 (accessed June 17, 2021).
Statista (2020). Consumer Market Overview, Cheese. Available online at: https://
www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/dairy-products-eggs/cheese/worldwide
(accessed June 17, 2021).
Steer, M. (2015). A Comparison of Land, Water and Energy Use Between
Conventional and Yeast-Derived Dairy Products: An Initial Analysis. Bristol:
University of the West of England.
SurveyGoo (2018). Nearly One in Three Consumers Willing to Eat Lab-Grown
Meat, According to New Research. Available online at: https://surveygoo.com/
portfolio/cultured-meat-survey/ (accessed June 17, 2021).
Tetrapak and Lund University (2020). Four Plausible Scenarios for the Future of the
Dairy Industry. Available online at: https://www.tetrapak.com/content/dam/
tetrapak/publicweb/gb/en/about/future-dairy-exec-summary.pdf (accessed
June 17, 2021).
The Good Food Institute (2021). Plant-Based Retail Market Overview. Available
online at: https://gfi.org/resource/marketresearch/ (accessed June 17, 2021).
The Grocer (2017). Meat the Future. . . and How to Market It. Available online
at: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/meat/meat-the-future--and-how-to-market-
it/546754.article (accessed June 17, 2021).
The Grocer (2018). “Test Tube Milk” More Likely to Win Brits Than Lab-Grown
Meat. Available online at: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sourcing/test-tube-
milk-more-likely-to-win-brits-than-lab-grown-meat/571598.article (accessed
June 17, 2021).
UNDP (2021). The Peoples’ Climate Vote. Available online at: https://www.undp.
org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/climate-and-disaster-resilience-/
The-Peoples-Climate-Vote-Results.html (accessed June 17, 2021).
Valente, J. D. P. S., Fiedler, R. A., Sucha Heidemann, M., and Molento, C.
F. M. (2019). First glimpse on attitudes of highly educated consumers
towards cell-based meat and related issues in Brazil. PLoS ONE 14:e0221129.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221129
van der Werf, H. M., Kanyarushoki, C., and Corson, M. S. (2009). An operational
method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of
dairy farms by life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 3643–3652.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.003
Weinrich, R., Strack, M., and Neugebauer, F. (2020). Consumer
acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Sci. 162:107924.
doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107924
Wilks, M., and Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: a survey
of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE 12:e0171904.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171904
World Bank (2019). Urban Population (% of Total Population). Available online at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS (accessed June 17,
2021).
Conflict of Interest: OZT was an employee of Formo (previously Legendairy
Foods), a company intent on understanding and facilitating consumer interest in
animal-free dairy. CB was the Director of Social Science at the Cellular Agriculture
Society, which aims to promote cellular agriculture.
Copyright © 2021 Zollman Thomas and Bryant. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
14 June 2021 | Volume 5 | Article 678491